Don’t order SR or MR if your winter is cold.

[RDoc]

Car needs a propane heater option

Actually, it has always needed a diesel heater option that would keep the battery and interior warm in very cold weather. Diesel is a lot easier to get on the road than propane. Even a 5 gallon tank would be enough to make a significant difference. Trucks, airplanes, and boats use them.

If for no other reason, it would save on CO2 emissions.

 

[ebmcs03]

You should expect at least 50% reduction in real-world range due to decreased battery efficiency, increased need for heating, increased vampire battery drain.

Then how do people with Fiat 500e survive?

 

[azaz]

Actually, it has always needed a diesel heater option that would keep the battery and interior warm in very cold weather. Diesel is a lot easier to get on the road than propane. Even a 5 gallon tank would be enough to make a significant difference. Trucks, airplanes, and boats use them.

If for no other reason, it would save on CO2 emissions.

Is this a joke?

 

[voip-ninja]

It hasn't even been cold in this area yet, so this isn't based on real world experience. Report back in February, and it'll be a bit more informed. Either way, I'm guessing your commute is short, you aren't pre-heating the cabin on shore power, or you have something wrong with you car.

Actual winter usage in a Tesla is extremely well covered by the Now You Know guys, Bjørn Nyland, KMan Auto, and several other popular cold climate youtubers. None of them have reported anything like 50% reduction. You should call Tesla if you're seeing that kind of loss, because it's not even close to normal.

I already posted a “real world” example of much greater than 12-13% loss in moderate winter temps. My car lost almost 150 miles of rated range on only 86 actual miles driven and I’m pretty sure there is nothing wrong with my car.

 

[bryan995]

Move to SoCal....? It was 72’F today!

 

[Subhuman]

Ok, but by your own numbers you've only lost 40 miles on a 310 mile battery pack. That's 12-13% loss, no? I'm not saying it isn't inconvenient, but it's not nearly as drastic as a claimed 50% loss.

No, I charge to 90% for a rated range of 280 and I am getting 200 miles. So I am losing 80 miles which is close to 30%. 30% is not an insignificant number.

 

[mswlogo]

86.1 miles driven in mostly 30's but some 20's temperatures. Range used, ~150 miles. 50% hit? No, but close.

View attachment 354104

What is “Beast Mode”?
Why is there a warning symbol (TPMS)?

You car is reporting 297 wh/mi which does not account for 70 miles loss.

Folks are mixing how they measure. There is really 3 ways.

1) Read off the wh/mi off trip computer.
2) Read miles left at point A and point B and compare actual miles driven from point A to point B
3) Read odometer once a month and a kilowatt meter attached to the car charging circuit.

All 3 will give vastly different numbers.

#1 does not account for cabin preheating when not plugged in. Or any usage while in park.

#2 is the measure of all usage that people tend to ignore but you need to be clear what your comparing. This would include phantom losses.

#3 is true cost of running and includes charging inefficiency, cost of preheating battery while charging a cold battery etc. And losses in charging itself.

So back to your 50% loss comment. You must have been using up some juice while not driving. Because it just doesn’t add up.

 

[Nate977p]

That is extremely small amount of data to make any kind of serious judgement. But I see about 22% loss.
A short drive is not an accurate measurement because the car is stressed at first (just as an ICE vehicle is).

So I took one of your long low efficiency drives and one of your long high efficiency drives and looked at the ratio.

Did you change to winter tires as well?

How's your tire pressure as temps have dropped?

Everything matters.

My next post had over 50 mile data, but I reuploaded here. Data holds pretty well over 50 miles drives.

I realized I only had Teslafi on for only about 3.5k miles so far. I agree not a ton of data, but it does follow a trend (minus the weird over 100% efficiency) and that is an appreciable amount of data. Removing the 70 to 75 coulumn as it doesn't follow the trend due to lack of data (50 miles) I'm averaging (including the weird 89 % in 60 to 65) about 30% loss and that is from 30 to 70°. 30 isn't even cold.... Following the data trend, when in the 20s I will be in the 50% loss range. Granted I do have the PS4 on and they give a big hit no doubt.

My variables:
-Garage kept ~ 60° at night so warm every morning
-Cannot charge over night
-PS4 on now, going to Nokian Hakak 9 studded (that's gonna hurt....)


Now I am not complaining. I knew I would not get real world, but approching 60% at 30° is a surprise to me. Still love the car, but this needs to be more transparently marketed for the mass market. Us early adopters knew there would be big losses.

To the OP point, my gf is waiting on an MR. She commutes mostly local, but about twice a week does a 240 mile round trip. With the MR our thought was she would be fine, SC once during the day. Now factoring in proper techniques, she would get 144 mile range (20% SOC to 80%), cut that by 60% efficiency, real world is about 86 miles. She's is now charging 3 times. Granted she will probably push the 20/80 rule, but for a mainstream consumer thinking they are buying a car that can go 240 miles, but proper procedure is really 86 miles in winter, that hurts.

To counter that, there is SC at destination, start, and Midway, so it's doable, but will add 60 to 90 minutes to the commute she used to do with a half tank if gas (her PHEV has 500 mile range).

 

[mswlogo]

My next post had over 50 mile data, but I reuploaded here. Data holds pretty well over 50 miles drives.

I realized I only had Teslafi on for only about 3.5k miles so far. I agree not a ton of data, but it does follow a trend (minus the weird over 100% efficiency) and that is an appreciable amount of data. Removing the 70 to 75 coulumn as it doesn't follow the trend due to lack of data (50 miles) I'm averaging (including the weird 89 % in 60 to 65) about 30% loss and that is from 30 to 70°. 30 isn't even cold.... Following the data trend, when in the 20s I will be in the 50% loss range. Granted I do have the PS4 on and they give a big hit no doubt.

My variables:
-Garage kept ~ 60° at night so warm every morning
-Cannot charge over night
-PS4 on now, going to Nokian Hakak 9 studded (that's gonna hurt....)


Now I am not complaining. I knew I would not get real world, but approching 60% at 30° is a surprise to me. Still love the car, but this needs to be more transparently marketed for the mass market. Us early adopters knew there would be big losses.

To the OP point, my gf is waiting on an MR. She commutes mostly local, but about twice a week does a 240 mile round trip. With the MR our thought was she would be fine, SC once during the day. Now factoring in proper techniques, she would get 144 mile range (20% SOC to 80%), cut that by 60% efficiency, real world is about 86 miles. She's is now charging 3 times. Granted she will probably push the 20/80 rule, but for a mainstream consumer thinking they are buying a car that can go 240 miles, but proper procedure is really 86 miles in winter, that hurts.

To counter that, there is SC at destination, start, and Midway, so it's doable, but will add 60 to 90 minutes to the commute she used to do with a half tank if gas (her PHEV has 500 mile range).


View attachment 354198

I’m sorry, but your math is nuts.

You are right that you should take something off for cold (30% tops). And 20-80 rule (for DAILY drive).

Perhaps the MR isn’t the right car for your GF with a regular 240 trip. I know I would not feel comfortable with a MR.

My guess is she could easily start at 90% and supercharge again to 90% at or near her destination. With room to spare.

60% off someone in SC is ridiculous.

 

[Nate977p]

I’m sorry, but your math is nuts.

You are right that you should take something off for cold (30% tops). And 20-80 rule (for DAILY drive).

Perhaps the MR isn’t the right car for your GF with a regular 240 trip. I know I would not feel comfortable with a MR.

My guess is she could easily start at 90% and supercharge again to 90% at or near her destination. With room to spare.

60% off someone in SC is ridiculous.

Why are you saying 30% is nuts? My driving data says 35% to 37% at 30°. And that is warm for up here during winter.

I agree the 20/80 is for daily, I was just more so making a point on that for how most mass market people will not know. If we expand to 5/90 it cuts charges down to about 2.

And what do you mean by this: 60% off someone in SC is ridiculous.

But my main point I was illustrating was for the mass market. The daily usable in the winter for people in colder areas is about 85-100 miles on the MR. That will be a shock to the mass market I think. Maybe I am wrong. I am not arguing people into EVs know this, but we are now in mass market territory and people buying cars rated at 240 miles, but real world in winter getting 100 following proper charging will cause rumblings.

 

[dhrivnak]

You realize that any car including the M3 uses a lot more energy for short trips. So even a 50 mile test is closer to a short range test rather than a 240 mile trip. While my average is 232 Watts/mile I can easily see 340 on trips of 20 miles or less.

 

[ba2002]

I can't read the whole thread, but on my model S I could easily see 50% loss when it was -20, cold battery, short trip, snow on road, head wind etc.

 

[dhrivnak]

I can't read the whole thread, but on my model S I could easily see 50% loss when it was -20, cold battery, short trip, snow on road, head wind etc.

The key here is short trips and you would see the same loss in a gas car. My old Prius would top out at 52 mpg in May but see 35 mpg in Feb.

 

[Nate977p]

You realize that any car including the M3 uses a lot more energy for short trips. So even a 50 mile test is closer to a short range test rather than a 240 mile trip. While my average is 232 Watts/mile I can easily see 340 on trips of 20 miles or less.

I do not agree 50 miles is short. That's an hour plus driving by me. And I will do 4 or 5 50 mile trips a day and I think that is not totally uncommon use case (well nor 4 or 5, but someone commuting 50 miles each way).

 

[SSonnentag]

Model S 100D Temperature Efficiency Chart

 

[nvx1977]

I've been testing the impact of the cabin heater on efficiency. I can't keep it completely off for my 80mi round trip commute due to fogging glass, so I turn on the heat/defroster just long enough to clear it (about 30 sec), and that buys me about 5-10 minutes before I have to run it again.

Doing this gets me 210Wh/mi, in heavy traffic. Temps right around freezing.

If I leave the cabin heater on the entire time, set to 74F, my efficiency will vary widely depending on traffic. In typical bumper to bumper traffic, it will be as high as 500Wh/mi. In no traffic, around 350Wh/mi.

Lots of variables, but what I'm seeing is that cabin heat is the most significant contributor to range loss in Model 3. Battery conditioning seems much less aggressive than the S. It takes way more driving to remove "limited regen."

Also keep in mind that cabin heater is an energy draw independent of distance traveled. If your average speed is slow, the impact to range is higher (because you're running the heater longer).

 

[SSonnentag]

In looking at my limited sub-freezing driving data, my S does indeed drop to efficiency numbers down in the 50% area for short trips of 1-10 miles on a cold battery/interior. So the 50% number is real worst case scenario in my opinion. It does not mean that your 300-mile range is now cut to 150 miles when taking road trips during the winter, as the 50% efficiency is only for the first few miles, and then the efficiency gradually increases to 80% or better over the next 50 miles and stays up there for the rest of the day's driving.

 

[voip-ninja]

What is “Beast Mode”?

You aren't familiar with where the name you gave your Tesla shows up?

Why is there a warning symbol (TPMS)?

Because Tesla doesn't account for altitude changes when evaluating TPMS data.

You car is reporting 297 wh/mi which does not account for 70 miles loss.

The car sat in a cold garage for 48 hours, and sat in bumper to bumper traffic for 30-40 minutes with the heater going.

Folks are mixing how they measure. There is really 3 ways.

1) Read off the wh/mi off trip computer.
2) Read miles left at point A and point B and compare actual miles driven from point A to point B
3) Read odometer once a month and a kilowatt meter attached to the car charging circuit.

#3 is the only one that will account for vampire drain and the impact of the car heater consuming lots of watts when the car hasn't been driven very far.

Because most of my charging is done at my work, it really isn't possible to get exact measurements.... I'm just pointing out for the purposes of this thread that for short distance trips in cold weather you can in fact see 40%+ range reduction.

 

[dsvick]

So many people suggest "preheating" and are only do the "math" on their vehicle. And not math on their electric bill ($$$).

It will likely cost you MORE to throw heat away when you arrive home from a commute and not charge immediately. Versus waiting until morning with your battery in its worst state and spending $$$ to heat your battery before leaving. They are ignoring what that cost is for that "preheat solution" and basically assuming that it is FREE.

This makes sense but only if the Model 3 is purposely diverting energy to warm the battery as opposed to letting it warm naturally as a byproduct of charging. If it is warming the battery in order to charge then yes, you do need to figure in that energy, but if it's simply charging at a slower rate until the battery warms up from charging then the amount of energy wasted/lost would be much less.

 

[dsvick]

Model S 100D Temperature Efficiency Chart

People that live in places where their energy graph doesn't show anything below 45 degrees are not allowed to participate in discussions about "cold" weather. It's still shorts and sandals weather where you are ...